- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
How many G5 and FCS schools give up CFB?
Posted on 7/9/20 at 5:54 pm
Posted on 7/9/20 at 5:54 pm
Got a text from a buddy who works at University of Northern Iowa. Says the B1G conference-only deal just wiped out a $650k payday (they were scheduled to play at Iowa on 9/5). This on top of an already projected budget shortfall of $1 million in their AD.
From the linked article:
How many weaker FCS and G5 programs will be able to field teams next year without big payouts from P5 teams to close the gaps in their Athletic budgets?
From the linked article:
quote:And this was at one of the more successful FCS programs (6 FCS top 5 finishes, 7 conference titles, 11 playoff appearances since 2001).
There was a $300,000 buyout of the game, but according to the Athletic's Scott Dochterman there was a clause in the contract that allows for “Act of God and nature, strikes, war or any other unusual occurrence beyond the control of the party” to void the game without financial penalty.
UNI's total athletic budget runs in the neighborhood of $14.5 million and the football program operates annually at about a more than $2 million loss even when the university hits financial targets.
How many weaker FCS and G5 programs will be able to field teams next year without big payouts from P5 teams to close the gaps in their Athletic budgets?
8
Posted on 7/9/20 at 6:08 pm to FearlessFreep
quote:
How many weaker FCS and G5 programs will be able to field teams next year without big payouts from P5 teams to close the gaps in their Athletic budgets?
Very few, if any. They probably won't give up the sport forever, just this season.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:23 pm to FearlessFreep
I don’t know why you’re OP has two downvotes you just gave us factual information that is very relevant. Some really smart economists need to work out how the loss of the trickle down, Ronald Reaganomics, aspect of all this will not destroy FCS sports. It might get to “hey man, us power five people have to take care of ourselves here. You FCS people take it easy good luck”.
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:31 pm to moester75
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/11/23 at 4:31 am
Posted on 7/9/20 at 9:45 pm to msutiger
quote:No, I asked a question: how many will give up CFB, and gave an example of an FCS school that was very successful on the field (with a recent win over a P5 program) but was struggling financially trying to keep up and might have to shut down their program.
Because he’s using an FCS school that was going into the season with a budget shortfall that was 7% of its entire athletic budget and grouping all of the G5 programs in with it.
quote:And there are also some very financially unsound schools in those categories as well. Do you think they will all weather a season with 90-100% negative cashflow?
There are some very financially sound schools in even the lower G5 like C-USA and the Sun Belt. The buy games are nice but the entire budgets aren’t built on it.
Posted on 7/10/20 at 2:30 am to FearlessFreep
For some schools, this sped up the inevitable. We've talked for years how schools athletic budgets were in the red and were hanging on to survive. This could push the P5 schools to finally break away and move towards their own divisions. Covid is only going to increase the divide between the haves and have nots.
Posted on 7/10/20 at 6:04 am to FearlessFreep
they only survive through socialism op. few will acknowledge it, pure facts there. rich schools give them charity games to stay afloat
Posted on 7/10/20 at 6:55 am to FearlessFreep
quote:
football program operates annually at about a more than $2 million loss even when the university hits financial targets.
Might be a good time to stop paying football coaches millions of dollars.
UNIs football coach makes almost 800k. Just his salary is around 40% of the shortfall.
Posted on 7/10/20 at 8:00 am to Mr Perfect
quote:
they only survive through socialism op. few will acknowledge it, pure facts there. rich schools give them charity games to stay afloat
It isn't charity
Power 5 schools schedule G5 school for a variety of reasons. If it was pure charity, P5 schools would have stopped scheduling G5 schools a long time ago.
Power 5 schools make more money on home games than they are paying out to a G5 team. This comes from ticket sales, concession sales, local economy boost, advertising rights and so much more. Each school has four non-conference games per year and most P5 schools would prefer those four games to be at home to generate more revenue. So, there is a demand for Power Five school home games, but there is no supply because most of the other power five schools also want those non conference games to be at home as well for revenue reasons. Enter G5.
It isn't some "treat" for Southern Miss to get their arse whipped by Alabama. Southern Miss would be better off paying Alabama State to come to Hattiesburg. Southern Miss spends no money on travel expenses, gets a win added to the schedule and makes money off of the revenue generated by a home contest. Alabama has to make the trip worth it for Southern Miss and thus we have arrived at the "buy game."
This also doesn't even take into consideration schools using G5 and FCS schools as warm up games or an opportunity to avoid an emotionally and physically draining battle against a non-conference team in the middle of a conference schedule.
Calling these games "charity" shows a complete lack of understanding of the business side of college football.
Posted on 7/10/20 at 10:47 am to msutiger
quote:This is all true, of course, but now imagine getting near zero revenue from the bolded section.
Power 5 schools make more money on home games than they are paying out to a G5 team. This comes from ticket sales, concession sales, local economy boost, advertising rights and so much more. Each school has four non-conference games per year and most P5 schools would prefer those four games to be at home to generate more revenue. So, there is a demand for Power Five school home games, but there is no supply because most of the other power five schools also want those non conference games to be at home as well for revenue reasons. Enter G5.
It isn't some "treat" for Southern Miss to get their arse whipped by Alabama. Southern Miss would be better off paying Alabama State to come to Hattiesburg. Southern Miss spends no money on travel expenses, gets a win added to the schedule and makes money off of the revenue generated by a home contest. Alabama has to make the trip worth it for Southern Miss and thus we have arrived at the "buy game."
CFB, if it does indeed happen in 2020, will be a huge money loser even for P5 programs. A lot of the expense in putting on a football game is sunk cost. Play them in an empty stadium in front of TV cameras and you're encountering a huge financial loss. Even with 'socially distanced' crowds in the stands you will see per-game expenses > revenues. Now multiply those losses by however many home games on the schedule, and schools might decide
it would be better financially to negotiate to reduce and/or defer salaries of the staff on contract (and jettison those who aren't) and cancel the season altogether.
And before you say 'muh TV revenue', think about what the networks will do next spring when it comes to paying the conferences: "Well, we based payouts on actual advertising revenues and viewership, but since you cancelled March Madness and baseball and reduced/cancelled football, we won't be paying you for programming you chose not to provide".
The whole thing was unsustainable in the long run already and would have blown up eventually. COVID just provided the Mt St Helens moment a few years ahead of schedule.
Posted on 7/10/20 at 11:01 am to FearlessFreep
I know G5 AD offices would be reluctant to do something like this, as it may hurt attendance in the long run. But I'd pay season ticket costs to be able to stream every home game via Ragin Cajun Athletic Network. I'm sure others would pay that as well. Could make up some of the money they lose out on payday games.
Not sure how that works with television contracts and whatnot, but I know some schools have something similar built into their athletic website. I notice it during baseball season where you can pay $5 to watch a game.
Not sure how that works with television contracts and whatnot, but I know some schools have something similar built into their athletic website. I notice it during baseball season where you can pay $5 to watch a game.
Posted on 7/10/20 at 11:22 am to FearlessFreep
Not too many.
And personally I'm not sure that's a bad idea. At some schools students pay mandatory "student fees", part of which goes to support athletics. Why should a student pay for an event the student has no intention of seeing?
And personally I'm not sure that's a bad idea. At some schools students pay mandatory "student fees", part of which goes to support athletics. Why should a student pay for an event the student has no intention of seeing?
Posted on 7/10/20 at 11:39 am to FearlessFreep
It would make sense if many schools (which have been losing money on athletics) used 2020 as the excuse to downsize the biggest programs.
Some of the most vocal alumni who love their football will scream but unless they want to make up shortfalls of millions of dollars at some point the money just isn't there. Supporting the high prestige sports like football obviously creates obligations to support an equal number of female athletes- so balancing a football budget really means balancing the budget for football, women's sports, facilities, cheerleaders, a school band, support staff, and coaches.
At some point that doesn't make sense. Especially in a time when student tuition and debt continue to skyrocket.
Some of the most vocal alumni who love their football will scream but unless they want to make up shortfalls of millions of dollars at some point the money just isn't there. Supporting the high prestige sports like football obviously creates obligations to support an equal number of female athletes- so balancing a football budget really means balancing the budget for football, women's sports, facilities, cheerleaders, a school band, support staff, and coaches.
At some point that doesn't make sense. Especially in a time when student tuition and debt continue to skyrocket.
Posted on 7/10/20 at 1:09 pm to FearlessFreep
quote:that’s very arguable. There’s a difference between March madness not happening by the NCAA’s will and it not happening because it retroactively fell under governmental shutdown orders (the Act of God)
"Well, we based payouts on actual advertising revenues and viewership, but since you cancelled March Madness and baseball and reduced/cancelled football, we won't be paying you for programming you chose not to provide".
Posted on 7/10/20 at 8:51 pm to Mr Perfect
Mr Perfect but your explanation is not “socialism” it is “Reaganomics” I’m not trying to say I’m some economist but I’m fed up with the socialism red herring and I would have voted for the Bern. This country doesn’t abide socialism and reactionary activity. The people that make things happen don’t abide it. Yea the DNC will allow that silly AOC lady to do silly shite but it ends there. It’s impossible to not get political on other boards besides only the Poli Board and reply to topics before I get reprimanded by some poster.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News